On Monday 16 January 2012 11:51:14 Scott Wood wrote:
> On 01/15/2012 01:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 January 2012 20:59:41 Scott Wood wrote:
> >> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c
> >>
> >> +#ifndef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST
> >> +#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST { CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE }
> >> +#endif
> >
> > would this be better off in nand.h ?
>
> I'm trying to get away from the model where the NAND subsystem pretends
> to know anything about how a driver talks to its hardware (except when
> the driver chooses to use a common NAND function that uses things like
> IO_ADDR_R/W). For eLBC it probably makes more sense to specify the
> chipselect rather than the address (we have to search for the former
> based on the latter), though that's a separate change that can happen on
> its own now that the connection to subsystem code has been severed.so the idea would be to let CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST and CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE die for devices that could care less ? and eventually obsolete CONFIG_SYS_MAX_NAND_DEVICE ? -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
